Beelink GTR6 (Ryzen 9 6900HX) mini PC review
ASRock X670E Steel Legend review
Solidigm P44 Pro (1TB/2TB) M.2 NVMe SSD Review
EnGenius ECW336 WIFI6E Access Point review
MSI MEG Z790 ACE review
Deepcool LT720 LCS Cooler Review
Arctic A35/I35 A-RGB air coolers review
Minisforum HX90G (Ryzen 9 5900HX + RX 6600M) mini PC review
MSI MPG Z790 Edge (DDR4) review
MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Gaming X TRIO review
Return of AMD FX processors within two years
AMD mentioned that the FX processor will be making a return in two years time. Very little information otherwise is shared really, there is no mention about the new architecture except that it will be developed from the ground up, it will not be a derivative of the Bulldozer architecture but a totally new high performance x86 (x86-64) architecture.
As wccftech reported (see source link), we dont really have any more details about the upcoming FX Series, apart from the fact that you will definitely be seeing a new high performance x86 (x86-64) architecture within two years. Now the move about AMD concentrating on the Chinese Market is itself very interesting. It is interesting because a big chunk of the Chinese Market is DIY (do it yourself) as opposed to OEM based.
This would affect manufacturer tactics of shipping lower end products to OEMs. Infact this very question was raised about Kabini and AMD replied in a negative by stating that Kabini is not meant for the high performance demanding DIY sector and is mostly OEM based so it will not be appearing in the Chinese market anytime soon. We already know AMD has a new architecture planned for 2016 and needless to say the following years are going to become very interesting for Red.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7042
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7042
Joined: 2012-11-10
#4822000 Posted on: 05/21/2014 07:00 PM
From a gaming point of view I believe AMD's current FX offerings are shown in a too negative daylight. As an overclocked FX-8350 owner I have to admit that -sure- they run hot and -agreed- they are insanely power hungry. So as efficiency goes it's really literally nowhere as per today's standards.
BUT
the performance on it's own, especially the price/performance ratio is, in my opinion highly debatable. I question most of the reviews out there and I have never seen a more divided landscape in reviews. Most of them show the FX as an i5 contender, mostly even "only" i3. i7 is supposedly "way out of it's league".
As a total package, all things considered; yes. It is.
As a gamers product, aka floating point, physics, whatever they do in games: no f*cking way. As an owner and enthousiast I ran a lot of benchmarks, primarily focused on 3D performance, but just as well on other tasks and almost every single time it rivals the (a lot) more expensive i7's.
Also, yet this is probably just having luck, my sample overclocks perfectly. Although I can only do 4.7Ghz without heat issues and Prime stable, I am able to run FSB speeds of 325 and beyond (200 being the default). That gives it soo much more overall boost that it really is a solid power puncher !
So again: sometimes I can relate in the reviews being hard on the FX's (the price is what persuaded me) but have never ever regreted my purchase. I feel that they come out in a more negative light than they deserve.
I agree. Also, even where an AMD CPU falls behind (in games), it's usually because of the memory controller, not so much the cores. Sure you might be able to get 150FPS on an i7 vs 120FPS on a FX-8350, but honestly does that REALLY matter? If the refresh rate of your monitor is below the frame rate, the total performance is irrelevant. I deliberately got a FX-6300 because aside from the power consumption, it had the best price vs performance in REAL world applications. I don't do stuff like encoding, rendering, or compiling very often, if ever, so the potential speed I lose from not going intel was irrelevant to me.
For me personally, I never upgrade my CPU until it has proven to be a bottleneck in any live tasks (like gaming) or virtual machines. When it comes to something like compiling, I have the patience to wait. Intel CPUs today appeal more to impatient people or those who have very poor task management. Intel CPUs are practical for never-ending heavy workloads and where power efficiency matters.
From a gaming point of view I believe AMD's current FX offerings are shown in a too negative daylight. As an overclocked FX-8350 owner I have to admit that -sure- they run hot and -agreed- they are insanely power hungry. So as efficiency goes it's really literally nowhere as per today's standards.
BUT
the performance on it's own, especially the price/performance ratio is, in my opinion highly debatable. I question most of the reviews out there and I have never seen a more divided landscape in reviews. Most of them show the FX as an i5 contender, mostly even "only" i3. i7 is supposedly "way out of it's league".
As a total package, all things considered; yes. It is.
As a gamers product, aka floating point, physics, whatever they do in games: no f*cking way. As an owner and enthousiast I ran a lot of benchmarks, primarily focused on 3D performance, but just as well on other tasks and almost every single time it rivals the (a lot) more expensive i7's.
Also, yet this is probably just having luck, my sample overclocks perfectly. Although I can only do 4.7Ghz without heat issues and Prime stable, I am able to run FSB speeds of 325 and beyond (200 being the default). That gives it soo much more overall boost that it really is a solid power puncher !
So again: sometimes I can relate in the reviews being hard on the FX's (the price is what persuaded me) but have never ever regreted my purchase. I feel that they come out in a more negative light than they deserve.
I agree. Also, even where an AMD CPU falls behind (in games), it's usually because of the memory controller, not so much the cores. Sure you might be able to get 150FPS on an i7 vs 120FPS on a FX-8350, but honestly does that REALLY matter? If the refresh rate of your monitor is below the frame rate, the total performance is irrelevant. I deliberately got a FX-6300 because aside from the power consumption, it had the best price vs performance in REAL world applications. I don't do stuff like encoding, rendering, or compiling very often, if ever, so the potential speed I lose from not going intel was irrelevant to me.
For me personally, I never upgrade my CPU until it has proven to be a bottleneck in any live tasks (like gaming) or virtual machines. When it comes to something like compiling, I have the patience to wait. Intel CPUs today appeal more to impatient people or those who have very poor task management. Intel CPUs are practical for never-ending heavy workloads and where power efficiency matters.
Dch48
Senior Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2011-10-09
Senior Member
Posts: 1821
Joined: 2011-10-09
#4822017 Posted on: 05/21/2014 07:24 PM
I have almost always used AMD CPU's and always have used ATI/AMD GPU's. This started in the single core days when AMD's CPU's were clearly superior, especially in gaming. It was disappointing to see that reversed when dual and multi-core came into being. I have still stuck with AMD though because of the bang for the buck principle. I also think that an APU in a laptop is the way to go. Not in a desktop however.
The FX CPU's perform more than adequately enough for what I do and are less expensive. The area where AMD is still the most competitive is gaming where they perform closer to their Intel rivals than they do in other areas. Yes, they still trail the i7's and most of the i5's but not by that much in the case of the i5. The current FX line are still good, powerful processors and will do the job. They are very unfairly maligned. I'm excited to see what they have in store in a couple of years.
I have almost always used AMD CPU's and always have used ATI/AMD GPU's. This started in the single core days when AMD's CPU's were clearly superior, especially in gaming. It was disappointing to see that reversed when dual and multi-core came into being. I have still stuck with AMD though because of the bang for the buck principle. I also think that an APU in a laptop is the way to go. Not in a desktop however.
The FX CPU's perform more than adequately enough for what I do and are less expensive. The area where AMD is still the most competitive is gaming where they perform closer to their Intel rivals than they do in other areas. Yes, they still trail the i7's and most of the i5's but not by that much in the case of the i5. The current FX line are still good, powerful processors and will do the job. They are very unfairly maligned. I'm excited to see what they have in store in a couple of years.
snip3r_3
Senior Member
Posts: 2981
Joined: 2004-12-17
Senior Member
Posts: 2981
Joined: 2004-12-17
#4822022 Posted on: 05/21/2014 07:30 PM
Sure you might be able to get 150FPS on an i7 vs 120FPS on a FX-8350, but honestly does that REALLY matter? If the refresh rate of your monitor is below the frame rate, the total performance is irrelevant.
... it had the best price vs performance in REAL world applications...
Intel CPUs today appeal more to impatient people or those who have very poor task management. Intel CPUs are practical for never-ending heavy workloads and where power efficiency matters.
I find your point a little bit weird. If this is how you view the industry, then why bother with newer technology at all? You effectively nullified most high end hardware. Do you need a 780Ti/Titan when a 760/770 works most of the time? Why a 6 core when a 4 core works most of the time too?
The market is all about marginal gains. You pay for increments in performance. Your level of willingness to pay, coupled with your needs, determines what you will buy. Calling Intel users impatient & having bad task management is frankly, quite immature.
While AMD CPUs are generally speaking, quite good for their price (disregarding efficiency), it ranges from being quite a bit slower than its comparable CPU in price (FX6 vs i3s, FX8 vs i5s) or in a few cases, exceed it. The only places I've seen AMD's architecture exceed Intel's at its price range is in high threaded applications where i3's HT usually cannot make up for the loss in physical cores. Similarly with i5 4v8 cores. In most games these days, Intel has a fairly large advantage, and I don't even want to argue about the frames. In CPU intensive games, that lead is going to often help determine playability, especially with more gamers adopting overclocked monitors and 120hz+. Until Freesync/Gsync monitors come out, you want 120FPS+ stable. Serious gamers with large wallets will obviously adopt the fastest they can afford. Similarly with workstations, you get the most suitable, performance/price component that matches your needs. It isn't about being impatient, time is money, productivity is determined by speed!
On AMD cpus, I really just hope they start rolling out APUs with at least 6 cores in the meantime. In two years, hopefully they can get their efficiency level on par with Intel at least Haswell/Broadwell.
Sure you might be able to get 150FPS on an i7 vs 120FPS on a FX-8350, but honestly does that REALLY matter? If the refresh rate of your monitor is below the frame rate, the total performance is irrelevant.
... it had the best price vs performance in REAL world applications...
Intel CPUs today appeal more to impatient people or those who have very poor task management. Intel CPUs are practical for never-ending heavy workloads and where power efficiency matters.
I find your point a little bit weird. If this is how you view the industry, then why bother with newer technology at all? You effectively nullified most high end hardware. Do you need a 780Ti/Titan when a 760/770 works most of the time? Why a 6 core when a 4 core works most of the time too?
The market is all about marginal gains. You pay for increments in performance. Your level of willingness to pay, coupled with your needs, determines what you will buy. Calling Intel users impatient & having bad task management is frankly, quite immature.
While AMD CPUs are generally speaking, quite good for their price (disregarding efficiency), it ranges from being quite a bit slower than its comparable CPU in price (FX6 vs i3s, FX8 vs i5s) or in a few cases, exceed it. The only places I've seen AMD's architecture exceed Intel's at its price range is in high threaded applications where i3's HT usually cannot make up for the loss in physical cores. Similarly with i5 4v8 cores. In most games these days, Intel has a fairly large advantage, and I don't even want to argue about the frames. In CPU intensive games, that lead is going to often help determine playability, especially with more gamers adopting overclocked monitors and 120hz+. Until Freesync/Gsync monitors come out, you want 120FPS+ stable. Serious gamers with large wallets will obviously adopt the fastest they can afford. Similarly with workstations, you get the most suitable, performance/price component that matches your needs. It isn't about being impatient, time is money, productivity is determined by speed!
On AMD cpus, I really just hope they start rolling out APUs with at least 6 cores in the meantime. In two years, hopefully they can get their efficiency level on par with Intel at least Haswell/Broadwell.
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 6331
Joined: 2010-10-17
Senior Member
Posts: 6331
Joined: 2010-10-17
#4822032 Posted on: 05/21/2014 07:45 PM
It'd be a monster die, but I don't think it'd be too difficult for them to fit 8 cores/4 modules, a 512 core GCN block, northbridge functions AND an L3 cache onto a reasonably sized die. If my understanding of CPUs is at it is, an L3 might help. Bumping the RAM controller up to intel levels and lower cache latency would probably help a chunk, too.
It'd be a monster die, but I don't think it'd be too difficult for them to fit 8 cores/4 modules, a 512 core GCN block, northbridge functions AND an L3 cache onto a reasonably sized die. If my understanding of CPUs is at it is, an L3 might help. Bumping the RAM controller up to intel levels and lower cache latency would probably help a chunk, too.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2037
Joined: 2006-12-12
To be honest, anything AMD put out will have beaten by Intel up to 1 year before already. Look at the way Piledriver was hammered and Bulldozer